Concerning Chris Rock--
I remember my mother saying that one of the wonderful things about the show Sanford and Son was that black comedian Redd Foxx could say things about black people because he was black, that no one who was not black could say.
I similarly remember Martin Mull joking about how deprived he was that he did not have a racial cultural background to insult with impunity, like Hispanic Paul Rodriguez does.
Jewish comedians have for decades joked that it was fine for them to make fun of their own people, but not fine for anyone else to do it.
And I think it can be connected to a feeling of family. A preacher whose name was Ern Baxter, I think, commented that at home he and his big sister would fight like cats and dogs, but if anyone picked on him on the playground she would tear into them like gangbusters.
My mother told me once that my cousin came home from school filled with a long list of Italian jokes he had heard from classmates, which he was telling at the dinner table, until his older brother interrupted him and said, "Bobby: we're Italian."
If I'm insulting us, that's fine, because I am part of us; if I am insulting you, then I'm the outsider. When Chris Rock makes disparaging comments about black people, it is evident that he does not mean all black people, or if he does it's all right because he's talking about himself. When you quote Chris Rock disparaging black people, you do not have the advantage he has: it is not at all clear whether you are making the same distinction he is making, and you certainly are not talking about yourself. You are offending all black people. When Chris says something about black people, it's like, "and I should know, because I'm one of them." When you quote what he says, it's like "and you're all like that, because Chris should know--but it's not about me." And when Chris Rock or Redd Foxx makes fun of black people, or George Burns or Buddy Hackett joke about Jews, or Paul Rodriguez belittles Hispanics, their own people are laughing at themselves because their own people are making fun of them. If they were to make fun of each other's people, they would cause offense. If you make fun of them, you cause offense. When you quote someone else making fun of them, you cause offense--even if you're quoting from them.
As to your other point, I've known enough gamers that I don't form images based on hobbies.
--M. J. Young
So then by the logic you're using, I am probably the only person on this board who has the right to use the word "Psycho" to mean an insane person. Interesting.
Which of course, brings up the point that the mentally ill are one of the few remaining groups of people who are still acceptable targets of open discrimination. Which really pisses me off.....
Actually, you are right, to some degree. Certainly you're the only person who can (as far as we know) make jokes about people with psychotic episodes or psychoses and include himself in the target category. On the other hand, I do tell jokes about groups of people of which I am not a member--all those "screw in a lightbulb" jokes are of that sort, and I'm not certain I've ever heard one that covers a category in which I would include myself. I also tell blonde jokes, which really are just racial/ethnic slurs with the race/ethnicity replaced by hair color. But then, I'll often say to a blond who has done something particularly, er, dubious, "You come by that hair color naturally, don't you?"
I once heard a black commentator on a radio station complain about the claims that other ethnic groups had gone through discrimination in their turn, that the Irish and the Italians and the Polish had been mistreated for their racial/ethnic identity. The black commentator said he hardly thought it was a significant hardship if all you had to do was change your name to get out of it. It was obvious to me, though, that the man did not understand. These people lived in an age when Europeans recognized very fine distinctions between each other. Grandparents of a girl with whom I went to school used to say, "Ja, but vat is a Svede but a Norvegian vit his brains knocked out?" Nuances of pronunciation, distinctive pigmentation, cultural quirks--these things marked you as of an "inferior" "race". Today we can't tell the difference, because the melting pot got us to melt. For myself, I'm (in no particular order) English, Irish, French, Italian, Scottish, Welsh, maybe Austrian, in some lines third generation from immigrant and in others vanishingly American. Such groups no longer exist as they once did. We've been homogenized.
So the question is whether psychotics are an identifiable minority group who would be offended by having others joke about their condition. If so, you can complain when anyone tells psycho jokes (Did you hear about the psycho who walked into a bar? Neither did he.) but tell them yourself with impunity--and you can fully expect that if you start the subject, others will assume that you don't mind jokes being told at your expense, and will also tell them (just like you quoted Chris Rock).
--M. J. Young
The word "Psychotic" has almost become a synonym for "Insane".
You hear it on the news all the time, "A psychotic killer" Well, how do you know he has overactive brain synaptic function? Did you ever give him the Bender-Gestalt psychosis test? Oh that's right, you're just generalizing.
I had a girlfriend, who had a grandmother who was schizophrenic. The girlfriend always got mad when I made fun of crazy people. Well, if I don't have the right to make fun of crazy people, no one does.
Two Posts
But then, I'll often say to a blond who has done something particularly, er, dubious, "You come by that hair color naturally, don't you?"
And when a blond does something of moderate intelligence or difficulty, my response is usually "Living proof that not all blonds are stupid." It invariably gets a smile.
Lots-O-Posts
Ya know what else though? Going back to what you said about not being "allowed" to make jokes about a group of which you are not a member, I had this come up in an abortion debate. I'm against abortion. A girl I was arguing with said "You're never going to be a woman in that situation." My reply was "Yeah, and you're never going to be a baby that's about to be aborted."
Please, no abortion debates, it was just a point I was making.
John, no one said you had the right to make fun of schizophrenics....
--M. J. Young
Well, according to my doctor, bipolar disorder, psychosis and schizophrenia are exactly the same illness, just in varying degrees. My doctor thought I was the worst bipolar she had ever seen. Turned out I was the lowest-grade psychotic. Like the difference between a cold and pneumonia. So, depending on how you look at it, I could just be a really low-grade schizophrenic.
(Doing Therapy)
"No, Brock is right. You started by giving the man the charisma and persuasion of God. This is the guy who makes the most eloquent orators look stumble-tongued, the best-dressed models shabby, the greatest actors hacks. This is the guy who will be able to persuade the KKK members that they are their own problem, that it is white people like them who are ruining society, and that to save the world they need to surrender their power to the more intelligent and more capable Negro race."
I think John's problem with 3@10 in attributes is he doesn't fully understand that that high of a score is barely able to be considered 'human' (supposing that they are/once were). He wants to maximize something, but doesn't yet understand just how ridiculous it is to have a 3@10.
I mean, does anyone her think that there is someone in the above example in the world today who could consistently make that charisma check? Maybe, but if there is, they must not want to do that particular action or it would be done. Having a sheer force of personality that powerful must be really something.
Soppose there was a character with 3@10 flexibility. What kind of outrageous physical contortions could someone like that perform? Any ideas?
What about 3@10s in other attributes? Examples anyone?
Right. That's the problem. The real question isn't what can they do. It's what CAN'T they do?!
Right.
Humans cannot achieve scores greater than 2@10 under modern conditions by modern means. That means you've never met a human with a 3@1 attribute at anything. You might have encountered animals with 3@ scores--the strength of horses, flexibility of snakes, that sort of thing--but never a 3@10 in anything.
--M. J. Young
but never a 3@10 in anything.
So a blue whale wouldn't have 3@10 strength? What about a dinosaur, if there were any alive?
(Doing Therapy)
I do not know whether there are dinosaurs with 3@10 strength. I suspect the blue whale is something shy of that. Superman probably has a 3@10 strength, as does Thor.
--M. J. Young
I went to a private school that was almost all white, and then to a college likewise. The same guy was class president of both of them. He was black.
That was not the important fact. The important fact was that he was almost unfailingly kind to everyone, very even tempered, charming...etc., etc.
I would not give him a high anmag score since while he was moderately attractive, he was no great guns (not like the blonde guy I knew in college who I heard some girls talking about....wow is he good looking, but not too bright.). Charisma, I'd guess 2@5. OTOH, maybe he had CHA 2@1 and a Friendliness skill of 2@8 because on first meeting him, he seemed okay, but nothing special.
I hope he went on to become a state senator or a mayor somewhere.
He reminds me of Barack Obama but nicer.
He could have probably walked out of the KKK meeting with them liking him fairly well.
"He's not one of THEM. He's a good guy."
Second post:
I overhead the girls talking, and I at first hoped it was me (My hair has darkened, but I was pretty blonde then). Unfortunately, while I was 'almost handsome when I dressed up', I was not male movie star, and I had more than a hundred IQ. They were talking about the Other Blonde Guy, the one who merited MJ's jokes to some degree.
He could have probably walked out of the KKK meeting with them liking him fairly well.
"He's not one of THEM. He's a good guy."
I have a hard time believing even a 3@10 would walk out of a KKK meeting alive, no matter what the game mechanics say.
John, the best any human can be is 2@10. If any real person could ever talk his or her way out of that meeting alive, it would be someone with a 2@10 in the relevant attribute (and a good SAL in some supporting skill wouldn't hurt).
3@10 is god-like. If any GOD could talk its way out of a KKK meeting alive (without straight-up mind control), it would be a god with 3@10 in the appropriate attribute.
You trying to imagine a person doing the best a person could possibly do. An entity with a 3@10 can do the best anything can possibly do - and because KKK members are not actually incapable of changing their minds (they are not robots, for example, nor are they trees), it is theoretically possible that they could be persuaded. Thus, a 3@10 could do it.
__
Coming at it from another angle: someone with a 3@10 strength could pick up a life-sized statue of King Kong made from solid gold. He might be able to do it using only one hand. Why shouldn't someone with a 3@10 persuasion be capable of similar feats?
I'm still stuck on the fact that I rolled a 15 against a 1@6 persuasion, (Which even I know is perfect) and the MP didn't let me go.
Also, I don't think our imaginary black man in the KKK rally would get much of a chance to persuade them of anything. Kind of hard to talk with a rope around your neck, not to be too blunt.....
Someone sent a French army to deal with the returned Napoleon who had a smaller army that was invading France. He rode ahead, and over a hill, looked at the men sent to capture him and shouted....
"I am France!"
They joined his side.
==================
Actually, I don't think KKK are nearly as hard-headed as John thinks. And I think the effect would apply even if you were dealing with genuine hardcases like the Stasi or the Waffen SS or typical liberal professors.
Granted Jesus was not able to persuade the Pharisees, but thats in part because He was asking a lot out of them. If He'd instead made a case for 'leave me alone and I'll get out of your way', I think He might have done better in the short run. And thats really all our 2@10 black guy is asking.
And I do think I've hit upon the arguement the KKK would use to justify their actions to themselves. They'd promote him in their minds to 'honorary white'. I think the Japanese might have been promoted to 'honorary Aryans' by the Nazis.
Also, keep in mind that even in the bad old days....
Southerner is prejudiced (well some of them, a lot weren't by the standards of the day)
Southerner sees black guy and 'Hey Joe, how was the fishing?'
Northerner loves all black people.
Northerner sees black person and says...nothing, because he doesn't see black people.
Its the old idea of "I love the world, its just teh individuals in it that I hate.'
IOW's, I suspect that you'd find more prejudgice on the north side of the Mason-Dixon Line than on the southern side. I know I've suffered a bit of it as I'm supposed to be an uneducated redneck. Oddly enough, I was born in Michigan, and I find all parts of the land I've been too beautiful...except where there are giant spiders.
Concerning your persuasion check, I did not make it and don't know what else was happening; but in that kind of situation you're going to have comparative attribute checks.
No one is saying that a 3@10 persuasion would automatically win against the KKK. What is being said is that the KKK members probably have an average will power around 1@5, and the best of them are unlikely to be above 1@10. There might be one in a billion with a 2@10 will power, and he's not at this meeting--O.K., maybe he is, but if he's the only one who is not persuaded, he doesn't have much chance of carrying the day, unless it's a debate and he also has a 2@10 persuasion to use to argue back.
So what are the odds?
The 3@10 is going to succeed on any roll except 40, and on a difficult check he's got a 3.33% chance of rolling a 40; so that's roughly 96.6% that he's going to be persuasive. The question then is whether he is going to be persuasive enough. If he rolls 30, no one can succeed against him--because a 30 roll is failure for the one guy with the 2@10. So that means ten rolls, from 30 to 39, are automatic successes for this guy--33.33% of all possible rolls he could make.
If he rolls 29, the only way they beat him is if the 2@10 guy rolls 29, and then and only then he's stubborn enough to resist. But the average idiot in the group has that 1@5 will power, and that means that he is successful only on rolls through 14--and since on a difficult check the lowest roll is 11, that's 4 chances at 3.33% each, 13.33% chance of making the difficult will power check successfully. But it's not enough that they make it successfully--they must meet or beat the one doing the persuading. That means he has a 13.33% chance of rolling low enough that an ordinary guy might resist him, and that ordinary guy has that chance of beating him (actually less than that, but the math is too daunting to tackle right now) if it falls into that level of probability--13% of 13%, which is between 1 and 2 percent.
They also beat him if he fails and they succeed, which is 13% of 3%.
So if the 3@10 persuasion guy is addressing a group of KKK members with ordinary 1@5 will powers, they have maybe 2% chance of resisting his godlike persuasive abilities. If he's got that one extremely rare 2@10 guy in the mix, the numbers are higher, but they're still something below 50%. (The KKK guy has the advantage that tie goes to the status quo, so 19 of 900 rolls are his by virtue that they are tied. For the rest, it's a 50/50 chance. So we've got 19 guaranteed to the KKK for being tied, 19 to the KKK because he was successful and the persuader rolled 40, 300 guaranteed to the persuader because they are unbeatable successes. There are also 10 more rolls in which both sides lose and the contest continues. That's 348 from 900 leaves 552
which split evenly between them, 276 each, so the divide is 314 for the 2@10 will power against 576 for the 3@10 persuasion, a 64% chance (O.K., I used the calculator for that last one--the rest I did on the fly) that the 3@10 persuasion will defeat the 2@10 will power, just under 35% that the 3@10 will win, and about 1.1% that the contest is undecided.
Anyway, pretty close to that.
And I think that's quite reasonable for the circumstances.
--M. J. Young
And I think that's quite reasonable for the circumstances.
You think it's reasonable that a black man could convince the KKK not to kill him.... I think you play this game too much and don't spend enough time in the real world....
You think it's reasonable that a black man could convince the KKK not to kill him....
A black man who is also a god? Yes. The point of this discussion, from my perspective, is to convince you that a score of 3@10 really is as patently absurd as it seems. This scenario strikes you as impossible? Great - because that's what a 3@10 does. It makes the impossible not just possible, but likely.
I don't think you're grasping just how huge the gap between a level two attribute and a level three really is. You have, more than likely, never met anyone who has had even as high as a 2@5 persuasion, and a level three attribute is so far beyond that that it can be - as you are demonstrating - difficult to imagine.
Well, there were people in the Bible who resisted God's persuasion.
I guess maybe you're right. I don't understand the gap there.
I'd say God limits Himself. I'd say God without changing the rules, cannot prove Himself to the skeptic because to reveal irrefutable truth would be to probably kill the receiever.
Its Lovecraftian in a way.
In Starsong Systems, there are a few people of centuries old sancticty. They wear face masks because to look in their face is to be faced with two choices: Accept the Truth (Edit: Right Now!)or go completely insane as you reject reality.
God is preserving our freedom of choice, and keeping our hearts from exploding.
Thank you, Scott.
That's the point, John. Can you imagine a man pushing the earth out of its orbit, or leaping out into space to smash an asteroid with his fists? That's the 3@10 strength of Superman. Can you imagine a woman so beautiful that when she enters a room full of men none of them can avert their eyes from her or act even moderately polite, but can only stare open-mouthed? That's the 3@10 animal magnetism of Venus/Aphrodite. You are talking about a 3@10 persuasion, about a man who makes selling refrigerators to Eskimos seem a simple task, who needs only a minute to persuade you that you've been foolishly claiming that black is a different color from white all your life, who can convince you that you're mistaken about the notion that horse droppings aren't actually delicious, and you need to finish savoring the bowl full he just gave you. This guy doesn't need hypnosis to confound your understanding of reality; he needs only to explain to you why you're wrong, and you'll get it.
That's the guy you put in the KKK meeting: the guy who if he chose could persuade these KKK members that they should be burning down their own homes and killing their own families, who would soon have them promoting him to their commander and blindly following his orders. For him to walk out unscathed would be simplicity itself. This guy makes Hitler's oratory look amateurish, makes Wesley's preaching second-rate, leaves Churchill in the ranks of the unconvincing, relegates the greatest orators and debaters of history to some lower status. If he were talking, they would not be able to get an ear.
You're not grasping the concept. No 3@10 in any attribute has ever lived. That's the point.
--M. J. Young
Atheist: "How do you know God is real?"
Christian: "The Bible says so."
Atheist: "How do you know the Bible is real?"
Christian: "The Bible says so."
Atheist: "The Koran says that Allah is the true god."
Christian "Why are you believing that false religion?"
Atheist: "How do you know it's a false religion?"
Christian: "The Bible says so."
I've heard arguments like this before. It just seemed related somehow.
Well, in this case we've already agreed that the rules are "the bible" for how the world works, so if the rules say that a 3@10 is this powerful, we all agree that he is.
Since we have established that 3@10 attributes do not exist in our reality, arguing that they could not do what is claimed for them because it is "unrealistic" is nonsense.
--M. J. Young
Ya know, I just realized, even the games we play as children are based in racism and prejudice. Cowboys and Indians, anyone?
(Doing Therapy)
It must be american then, we played and play cops and thieves/robbers here in Belgium. Cowboys and Indians is also known, but both are equally attractive because they are ... exotic.
heh, interresting that this topic is still up. :)
Oh yeah, Cops and Robbers is another that we play here. If you think about it, it's just a variation on Cowboys and Indians. The format "Good guys and Bad guys" would probably suit it. It was just something I thought about whilst watching a movie.
(Doing Therapy)
John, your analysis of it as "good guys and bad guys" is probably correct--which is why Nikolaj played Cops & Robbers but not Cowboys & Indians. Indians were perceived as the villains thanks in large part to the popularity of westerns in the mid twentieth century, in which the good peaceful settlers were always endangered by the terrible indians who did not understand that the land on which the settlers lived was now private property.
My generation also played Spacemen & Aliens, which is another variation of the same theme.
But although on one level Cowboys & Indians is based on racism and prejudice, it is really one step removed. It is not really different from knights slaying dragons, except that the indians are more easily portrayed by people: you have a class of heroes to which everyone wants to belong, and a class of evildoers who give the heroes something heroically to oppose. It happens that those particular evildoers are identified racially; but when you play cops and robbers the basis of identification is different (you don't say that all the Irish are cops and all the Italians are robbers, even if you grew up in Chicago or New York or Boston). The identification of the indians with the villains arises from the preconception that indians were always killing "people" without good cause, and so needed to be stopped. They're the orcs of the fantasy western (unless you play Deadlands Weird West). And in that sense, what you're really playing is War (and we played that, too--the Germans were the villains, but that's not racism: it's nationalism based on the fact that two generations immediately before us fought against Germany in Europe). In War, you decide that you're the good guys and you're going to win, and that those others are the bad guys and they're going to lose, because you wouldn't be fighting them if they weren't bad, and they can't win unless they're good. And every American kid knew that America was the good guys and Germany and Japan were the bad guys, so it came down to the same "good guys versus bad guys" model, with different labels on the trappings.
--M. J. Young
"Who built it? The Russians? The Chinese? The Martians? Canadians? I DON'T CARE!!!! All I know is WE didn't build it, and that's reason enough to assume the worst and blow it to Kingdom Come."
From The Iron Giant. Kind of sums prejudice up nicely.
(Doing Therapy)
Two Posts
I didn't occur to me at the time of the above writing that not everyone would have seen the movie I was referencing. The Iron Giant is a 100 foot tall alien robot which crash-lands in Maine in 1957, during the peak of the Cold War. As long as the robot doesn't perceive you as a threat (and you don't mind that it eats large quantities of metal) it's pretty much harmless. Of course though, the government has the attitude described in the above line, and tries to destroy it. A really good movie, and a really good message about judging people before you understand them.
I can't believe the ignorance of my gay neighbor. Saying he's going to call 911 if I come any closer? What kind of a threat is that? He would have been using a cell phone. The 911 service can't trace the location of a cell phone. All of this means that he would have to open his phone, dial 911, tell them the situation AND his location before I covered 10 feet and took the phone away from him. I don't think the Micro Machines guy could talk that fast.
If I WERE a "Dangerous Crazy Person" that threat would have gotten him killed, as I would have had no regard for such threats. I would have caught him flat-footed before he finished dialing the number. The simple fact that the threat kept me at bay proved that I wasn't dangerous, but he will probably never realize that.
Sorry, it's just really funny to me to think about.
Actually, modern cell phones include GPS locators which usually cannot be shut off when you call 911, so the call center gets your location even with the call. They ask where you are for confirmation, mostly.
Also, a lot of phones are equipped with one-button emergency dialing. It is sometimes a problem, because it's the most commonly made pocket call, and the call center is not supposed to assume that there is not a problem without reaching someone by call-back and confirming the situation.
So presumably if he managed to get out his cell phone and hit one button, the police would have come.
--M. J. Young
Not disputing that MJ, but the fact remains, a "Dangerous Crazy Person" (I just know he would have called me that) wouldn't care about the threat. They would be thinking more like "I've only got 4 minutes to kill this guy, better hurry."
You didn't see him MJ, he was a raving lunatic. What would have been much more likely to happen would have been he dials 911, the number, I just stand there and watch. He reports a "Dangerous Crazy Person" is attacking him. I go inside and get my cigarettes, and sit on the front porch. In the course of us verbally abusing one another whilst waiting for the cops, HE attacks ME!!!! When the cops show, they would find me crouched in the fetal position, with him pounding on me. (Cuz I'm certainly not going to fight back with the cops on the way....) The cops see him beating me up and pull him off of me. In his blind rage, he hits the cops. He gets subdued and handcuffed quickly. The cops then ask me "So you called about a dangerous crazy person?" I say "No, he's the one who called, I'm the dangerous crazy person." He gets charged with assault and battery (on me) assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, and making a bogus 911 call. I could legitimately see that happening.
See what I mean about insanity? At least I know I'm crazy!!!!! My symptoms are a lot more unusual than most, but at least I am aware of them, ya know?
(Doing Therapy)
Cops are only minutes away when you need them in seconds.
I don't dial 911, I dial 357.
Most lunatic massacres occurred in 'gun-free zones'. Maybe we should change those signs to 'plentiful unarmed victims inside.' so as to attract the serial killers who can't understand basic logic. Don't want to discriminate after all.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
If guns are outlawed, can we use swords? (and the answer in England as the crime shoots up seems to be 'no--knife bad, surviving attack by thug bad, law abiding subject of the Crown bad'.
I favor getting rid of guns. After all, I'm a male over six feet tall. Give me a sword, and I can probably kill most people except for the talented swordfighters. Fair play for big guys. Let us crush you little people, you small males, and women into the dirt where you belong!
Its an interesting point that one of the few places I feel small at is an SCA meeting which is filled with big guys. God made everyone, Sam Colt made them equal. And who wants equality? Don't you little people realize that us tall people are nearer to Heaven?
Damn Eric, and I thought I went on strange rants...
(Doing Therapy)
You pointed out that you'd have four minutes to beat up the guy before the police got there.
And I was enjoying myself.
It was a joke dude. Perhaps a bad, tasteless joke, but a joke nonetheless. I actually agree with just about everything you said there.
If it were up to me, we would go back to the Wild Wild West. Everyone has a 45 on their hip, and settles disputes at high noon in the town square.